Impossible to have "objective" moral worth, I assume you mean. We are all free to assign moral worth to ourselves and others as we see fit. I just don't see why it matters if my existence doesn't have some intrinsic value to all of reality beyond the limited sphere of my own influence. I'm not troubled by that fact. Why would I be?

And I don't have any trouble explaining human behaviors. We evolved as a social, cooperative species and developed traits like empathy that encourage behaviors that strengthen group dynamics.

Rocag said:

---

Impossible to have "objective" moral worth, I assume you mean. We are all free to assign moral worth to ourselves and others as we see fit. I just don't see why it matters if my existence doesn't have some intrinsic value to all of reality beyond the limited sphere of my own influence. I'm not troubled by that fact. Why would I be?

And I don't have any trouble explaining human behaviors. We evolved as a social, cooperative species and developed traits like empathy that encourage behaviors that strengthen group dynamics.

---

That's a weird way to say all human behavior is moral simply because humans do it. Or is that not a natural implication of this response?

Certainly not in any objective sense. With morality being subjective, what is and isn't considered moral is just a label that we as individuals and collectively as a society assign. And history pretty clearly demonstrates that we tend to do that in wildly different ways.

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

---

But over and over again you cannot state how or why it's deficient or how it should be modified. Why should I take that seriously?

That with a silent invisible god and the universe being as it appears to be you have zero chance of supporting an objective morality is precisely why several of us in this thread have been telling you there is no such thing. How have you been missing that? We live in a universe utterly consistent with no objective morality.

If we lived in a universe where people received an electric shock every time they committed certain moral acts you'd have one hell of a case.

To your second question-if I'm right why should you care what other people think? For basically the exact same reasons you should care if people with differing opinions pretend at objective morality. Societies need rules to function. Since no objective morality exists or at the very least no objective way to access whatever the unknown objective morals are we must decide collectively on the rules amongst ourselves.

You live in a world of subjective morals. Acknowledging that really changes nothing in a practical sense besides encouraging a tiny bit of humility when making laws.

---

Why could societies not function without rules? Why have rules if they're equal parts just and unjust? Why should I care?

---

the premise that a rule is unjust just because it's not objective isn't workable. As we showed with Martin earlier objectively demonstrate that a 17 year old is a child and an 18 year old is an adult.

If laws are unjust if they cannot be objectively demonstrated then laws are unjust regardless of whether you believe objective morals exist. This is a silly standard.

A small enough society might work without rules, at least without explicit ones. But large enough societies statistically always have people that are poor enough neighbors the other citizens want a way to address their behavior.

I don't particularly want to live in a lawless society, nor do I particularly want to live in a theocracy. Most of us want something in between so we will compromise with our neighbors.

I'm always amazed theists actually think this presents any problem. We've lived a very long time with disagreement about morals. This is nothing new.

---

It does present a problem. You can't answer the "why" because you know how that plays out. If morals are subjective, then a theocracy is as good as anything, unless you can tell me why it isn't without telling me what you want or don't want. There's no reason for me to care about you or what you want.

---

I did answer your question. Me pretending at objective morality or you pretending at objective morality changes nothing about how much we should care about someone we disagree with.

The things we don't like about a theocracy don't change one bit by pretending at objective morality either on behalf of the theocracy or against it.


What exactly does the pretense at objectively buy you?

---

Objective truths don't rely on your belief in them. Their existence is the cause of your thinking about them, and not the other way around. I care because I want to do human things instead of inhuman things. If you were consistent, then you would just admit that you're a nihilist and move on.

If we're reducing morals to a matter of personal preference then there's nothing TRULY wrong with rape or incest. That you find those things repugnant doesn't speak to their moral worth. It just speaks to your aversion to them even if you can't justify your aversion.

---

The arguments for objective morality always break down to this sort of arm flailing. There is no logic no argument no persuasion. It simply breaks down to "I don't like contemplating a world that's different than the one I was taught I. Sunday school". That's not an argument.

The enormous universe doesn't revolve around us…so what? The cosmos doesn't care about rape only us…so what? I never asked the stars to care. It was ever and always only us on this rock. And we should care as much as we ever did. The idea that nihilism is required the second the universe doesn't revolve around you is simply childish.

I justify my aversion to rape through the harm it does. Understanding that the arguments for objectivity morality fail doesn't make you a sociopath. Further I reject the notion that the only reason you don't accept rape is because god decided he didn't like it very much (as long as you aren't a female virgin prisoner of war in the OT then it's fine). Thats it, that's all that's holding you back, god is somehow disproved tomorrow and you are ok with rape? Even now with your objective morals are you ok with raping war prisoners like in the OT? Do you think they were right? Or are you going to sit around and pretend that forced marriage of a woman to the man who murdered her family isn't rape?

Nothing cracks me up more than watching "the world will burn if we accept moral relativism" people defend abhorrent actions in ancient texts.

The world is much more likely to burn if people truly believe morality was set in stone 3000 years ago.

AGC said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Certainly not in any objective sense. With morality being subjective, what is and isn't considered moral is just a label that we as individuals and collectively as a society assign. And history pretty clearly demonstrates that we tend to do that in wildly different ways.

---

Right, your argument is that the whole scope of human behavior cannot be called immoral on any basis other than power. But not even the subjectivists believe that because, generally, they get really indignant about being told they'd be fine with rape or murder or kid diddling.

I mean I assume you think those things are wrong: are you here saying that absent this society you've grown up in, you'd be totally ok with it all? Is it perfectly acceptable behavior?

Edit: the above post is a great example. This idea of harm exists in a formerly Christian society. It's absent in many others and likely wouldn't be thought of if he lived anywhere else. The behavior itself is not analyzed for right or wrong, it's just what one wants to do about it. Rape is not wrong in this world.

---

It's hard to respond to this one because you've so clearly completely misunderstood everything I said. Not sure if it was on purpose or not.

Power can't make any moral standard objectively true. Having the power to punish people who break a moral standard doesn't make it objectively true.

My moral beliefs are absolutely influenced by the society in which I've been raised. If I'd been born into a slave owning family in the south in the early 1800's would I believe slavery is OK? There's probably a good chance I would. I'd hope not, but it's impossible to know. But I don't think your point of asking what I'd believe in a different society is as convincing as you might think because there's an important corresponding question for you that others have mentioned: Would you think those same things (murder, rape, etc) are acceptable if there was no god or objective moral standard?

The claim that the idea of harm doesn't exist in non-Christian societies seems a weird one. I don't think you can actually back that one up.

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

I wonder who, as an adult, would be more likely to defend "kid diddling" in a culture that tolerates it? The person who has rejected the indoctrination they received in their formative years, or the person that defends their indoctrination in that culture as "objective morality"?

---

Probably the person that's says if Christian's were born in the Muslim world that they would be Muslims instead because they think people are simply products of their environment.

---

Is there a single coherent argument as to why religion is so dramatically geographically determined if people overwhelmingly aren't products of their environment?


How can you possibly explain what we see? No one is claiming people 100% cannot buck the trends of their environment, every non believer on this thread is proof otherwise, but the trend is undeniable.

Rocag said:

---

AGC said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Certainly not in any objective sense. With morality being subjective, what is and isn't considered moral is just a label that we as individuals and collectively as a society assign. And history pretty clearly demonstrates that we tend to do that in wildly different ways.

---

Right, your argument is that the whole scope of human behavior cannot be called immoral on any basis other than power. But not even the subjectivists believe that because, generally, they get really indignant about being told they'd be fine with rape or murder or kid diddling.

I mean I assume you think those things are wrong: are you here saying that absent this society you've grown up in, you'd be totally ok with it all? Is it perfectly acceptable behavior?

Edit: the above post is a great example. This idea of harm exists in a formerly Christian society. It's absent in many others and likely wouldn't be thought of if he lived anywhere else. The behavior itself is not analyzed for right or wrong, it's just what one wants to do about it. Rape is not wrong in this world.

---

It's hard to respond to this one because you've so clearly completely misunderstood everything I said. Not sure if it was on purpose or not.

Power can't make any moral standard objectively true. Having the power to punish people who break a moral standard doesn't make it objectively true.

My moral beliefs are absolutely influenced by the society in which I've been raised. If I'd been born into a slave owning family in the south in the early 1800's would I believe slavery is OK? There's probably a good chance I would. I'd hope not, but it's impossible to know. But I don't think your point of asking what I'd believe in a different society is as convincing as you might think because there's an important corresponding question for you that others have mentioned: Would you think those same things (murder, rape, etc) are acceptable if there was no god or objective moral standard?

The claim that the idea of harm doesn't exist in non-Christian societies seems a weird one. I don't think you can actually back that one up.

---

Your argument is against objective morality but also much bigger and you're trying to contain it at the source. There's a contradiction of wanting to hold on to a belief of right and wrong but being unable to assert that it exists. That's the tension of being a product of your society but also wanting to push back against what came before you. The rejection of any objective morality, and beyond that, any way of knowing a thing to be objective (true outside of yourself) always ends in nihilism. If you can't know something beyond yourself even an idea of 'harm' or 'consent' eventually becomes meaningless; the simple argument of 'who are you to say what's moral' is not to take down a brick in a wall, it means the wall is already gone and only another individual exists in defiance of your will.

Francis Schaefer would say you're below the line of despair.

Edit: I didn't make the argument you typed in the last paragraph. I assume you misunderstood me.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Dude. I haven't posited a view other than that your standard is deficient, and you're not being even handed in how you apply the standard. What possible evidence of objective morality could I provide you based on your standard for what constitutes evidence? What would evidence look like?

At the end of the day if you're right and there's no objective moral law, then why should any of us care about what you have to say on the subject? I don't particularly care about other people's preferences with regard to morality.

---

But over and over again you cannot state how or why it's deficient or how it should be modified. Why should I take that seriously?

That with a silent invisible god and the universe being as it appears to be you have zero chance of supporting an objective morality is precisely why several of us in this thread have been telling you there is no such thing. How have you been missing that? We live in a universe utterly consistent with no objective morality.

If we lived in a universe where people received an electric shock every time they committed certain moral acts you'd have one hell of a case.

To your second question-if I'm right why should you care what other people think? For basically the exact same reasons you should care if people with differing opinions pretend at objective morality. Societies need rules to function. Since no objective morality exists or at the very least no objective way to access whatever the unknown objective morals are we must decide collectively on the rules amongst ourselves.

You live in a world of subjective morals. Acknowledging that really changes nothing in a practical sense besides encouraging a tiny bit of humility when making laws.

---

Why could societies not function without rules? Why have rules if they're equal parts just and unjust? Why should I care?

---

the premise that a rule is unjust just because it's not objective isn't workable. As we showed with Martin earlier objectively demonstrate that a 17 year old is a child and an 18 year old is an adult.

If laws are unjust if they cannot be objectively demonstrated then laws are unjust regardless of whether you believe objective morals exist. This is a silly standard.

A small enough society might work without rules, at least without explicit ones. But large enough societies statistically always have people that are poor enough neighbors the other citizens want a way to address their behavior.

I don't particularly want to live in a lawless society, nor do I particularly want to live in a theocracy. Most of us want something in between so we will compromise with our neighbors.

I'm always amazed theists actually think this presents any problem. We've lived a very long time with disagreement about morals. This is nothing new.

---

It does present a problem. You can't answer the "why" because you know how that plays out. If morals are subjective, then a theocracy is as good as anything, unless you can tell me why it isn't without telling me what you want or don't want. There's no reason for me to care about you or what you want.

---

I did answer your question. Me pretending at objective morality or you pretending at objective morality changes nothing about how much we should care about someone we disagree with.

The things we don't like about a theocracy don't change one bit by pretending at objective morality either on behalf of the theocracy or against it.


What exactly does the pretense at objectively buy you?

---

Objective truths don't rely on your belief in them. Their existence is the cause of your thinking about them, and not the other way around. I care because I want to do human things instead of inhuman things. If you were consistent, then you would just admit that you're a nihilist and move on.

If we're reducing morals to a matter of personal preference then there's nothing TRULY wrong with rape or incest. That you find those things repugnant doesn't speak to their moral worth. It just speaks to your aversion to them even if you can't justify your aversion.

---

The arguments for objective morality always break down to this sort of arm flailing. There is no logic no argument no persuasion. It simply breaks down to "I don't like contemplating a world that's different than the one I was taught I. Sunday school". That's not an argument.

The enormous universe doesn't revolve around us…so what? The cosmos doesn't care about rape only us…so what? I never asked the stars to care. It was ever and always only us on this rock. And we should care as much as we ever did. The idea that nihilism is required the second the universe doesn't revolve around you is simply childish.

I justify my aversion to rape through the harm it does. Understanding that the arguments for objectivity morality fail doesn't make you a sociopath. Further I reject the notion that the only reason you don't accept rape is because god decided he didn't like it very much (as long as you aren't a female virgin prisoner of war in the OT then it's fine). Thats it, that's all that's holding you back, god is somehow disproved tomorrow and you are ok with rape? Even now with your objective morals are you ok with raping war prisoners like in the OT? Do you think they were right? Or are you going to sit around and pretend that forced marriage of a woman to the man who murdered her family isn't rape?

Nothing cracks me up more than watching "the world will burn if we accept moral relativism" people defend abhorrent actions in ancient texts.

The world is much more likely to burn if people truly believe morality was set in stone 3000 years ago.

---

WHY do you have an aversion to people harming people? The arguments for moral relativism always break down to stealing from Christian ethics, and never justifying why it's preferable. How do you even know if you're being harmed? Does pain reveal anything to us about what's TRUE? How do you know? Would it be good if it resulted in new life and propagation? Wouldn't that be conducive to human flourishing? How do you know? You're just assuming first principles. That's the part you can't explain and don't even entertain. It's just "nah that's dumb. You can't prove it."

You can't even make sense of your own epistemology.

These may be too much of a divergence from the thread, but I'm going to give it a try. . .we'll see what happens.

Lets say that Joe Smith is a modern day Christian. He is active in his church, a caring father and husband, stand up guy, truly a pillar of his community. But Joe thinks certain types of people are inferior. And so he has kidnapped some of them, chained them down in his basement and forces them to work on projects that enriches his bank account. He also rapes them and beats them from time to time. And he's not above killing them if he feels its necessary. He allows for some of the men and women to marry and have children. But, he often takes the children away or the spouses away to break up the family and he sells those family members to other people that believes and he does. Even though he thinks these people are inferior, he cares enough about them to ensure they are cared for and fed and clothed and housed.

Before reading on, tap into your emotions about Joe Smith. Is this person a good Christian? Do you even consider this person a 'Christian'? Do feel this is a good person? An evil person? As I understand the Christian views on this board - slavery is objectively wrong. As is kidnapping, rape, assault, and a bunch of other things that Joe Smith may be guilty of.

------

If I turn on the news tonight and see that Joe Smith has been arrested for kidnapping, raping, beating, and killing 'ethnically inferior' people, I would be very upset. The fact that he is an active member of his community and loving family member would do very very little toward making me feel any sympathy toward him and wishing for the maximum penalty under the law.

However, If Joe Smith was a planation owner in the Southern US in the early 1800s, it is likely that I would feel differently toward him. I still feel that his actions are despicable and I would judge his actions as immoral against my own personal morals. But, I can also understand him as, partially, a product of his time and place. I can recognize that not ALL slave owners in the US were terrible people. And I can recognize this through moral relativism. It allows me to think of Joe's actions in context relative to his situation / time in history / culture.

I don't see that moral objectivism offers a similar path. The moral transgressions of American slave owners through history are objectively the same as modern day Joe. American slave owners were kidnappers, rapists, murders, abusive racial tyrants. Are they good Christians? Do you even consider them to be 'Christian'? Are they good or evil? Whatever you felt about Joe Smith after paragraph 3 ought to apply to the historical slave owners - because morality is not relative (dependent) on context.

From a perspective of moral objectivity, America's founding fathers were murderous racist abusive rapists. Do you grant them more leniency for being stand up citizens and pillars of their community on account of their time and place? Or do you come to the conclusion that America was founded on these horrific principals by monstrous people masquerading as 'Christians'?

Rocag said:

---

Even if I were to accept what you said as true, and I do disagree with it, none of it really makes the existence of an objective moral standard any more likely. Preferable, certainly. But more likely to exist? No.

---

Bob gets it: it's a function of epistemology. You can't validate your own experiences without an external reference point. How could you possibly derive any notion of morality internally? You don't even know if your own responses can be trusted or true.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

These may be too much of a divergence from the thread, but I'm going to give it a try. . .we'll see what happens.

Lets say that Joe Smith is a modern day Christian. He is active in his church, a caring father and husband, stand up guy, truly a pillar of his community. But Joe thinks certain types of people are inferior. And so he has kidnapped some of them, chained them down in his basement and forces them to work on projects that enriches his bank account. He also rapes them and beats them from time to time. And he's not above killing them if he feels its necessary. He allows for some of the men and women to marry and have children. But, he often takes the children away or the spouses away to break up the family and he sells those family members to other people that believes and he does. Even though he thinks these people are inferior, he cares enough about them to ensure they are cared for and fed and clothed and housed.

Before reading on, tap into your emotions about Joe Smith. Is this person a good Christian? Do you even consider this person a 'Christian'? Do feel this is a good person? An evil person? As I understand the Christian views on this board - slavery is objectively wrong. As is kidnapping, rape, assault, and a bunch of other things that Joe Smith may be guilty of.

------

If I turn on the news tonight and see that Joe Smith has been arrested for kidnapping, raping, beating, and killing 'ethnically inferior' people, I would be very upset. The fact that he is an active member of his community and loving family member would do very very little toward making me feel any sympathy toward him and wishing for the maximum penalty under the law.

However, If Joe Smith was a planation owner in the Southern US in the early 1800s, it is likely that I would feel differently toward him. I still feel that his actions are despicable and I would judge his actions as immoral against my own personal morals. But, I can also understand him as, partially, a product of his time and place. I can recognize that not ALL slave owners in the US were terrible people. And I can recognize this through moral relativism. It allows me to think of Joe's actions in context relative to his situation / time in history / culture.

I don't see that moral objectivism offers a similar path. The moral transgressions of American slave owners through history are objectively the same as modern day Joe. American slave owners were kidnappers, rapists, murders, abusive racial tyrants. Are they good Christians? Do you even consider them to be 'Christian'? Are they good or evil? Whatever you felt about Joe Smith after paragraph 3 ought to apply to the historical slave owners - because morality is not relative (dependent) on context.

From a perspective of moral objectivity, America's founding fathers were murderous racist abusive rapists. Do you grant them more leniency for being stand up citizens and pillars of their community on account of their time and place? Or do you come to the conclusion that America was founded on these horrific principals by monstrous people masquerading as 'Christians'?

---

Intrinsic evils and culpability are different things. We recognize this in the law. If someone is incapable of understanding that he's committing an atrocity because he's insane, then he's not as culpable as someone who has their wits about them. Moral truths can be revealed over time. That society hadn't progressed past the point where they recognized chattel slavery as inherently evil (credit to western Christian nations for effectively ending chattel slavery)., is not evidence that the truth of the matter has changed. They were wrong. We know that now. Is your stance that slavery was morally ambiguous 200 years ago, but that it's a moral evil today?

There were also a lot of people who recognized slavery as a moral evil, but found it difficult to change their behavior, which is always the harder part. Like if you were in a job that was asking you to do some unsavory things. You might still find it difficult to leave because your family relies on it.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Certainly not in any objective sense. With morality being subjective, what is and isn't considered moral is just a label that we as individuals and collectively as a society assign. And history pretty clearly demonstrates that we tend to do that in wildly different ways.

---

Right, your argument is that the whole scope of human behavior cannot be called immoral on any basis other than power. But not even the subjectivists believe that because, generally, they get really indignant about being told they'd be fine with rape or murder or kid diddling.

---

And on what basis to you label things immoral? Do you speak for God? Or do you label things as immoral based on your subjective understanding of God's objective will?

---

Kurt I don't want to jump the shark or offend but my posts says kid diddling is ok if morality is only a measure of power. Are you saying you agree with that, and that it's not wrong (nor would you feel obligated to stop it) in a society that legalized it? Are you really asking who says kid diddling is immoral?

---

Over and over in this thread, these conversations come coming back to these exchanges:

atheist: kid diddling / rape / murder are all wrong, but I can't claim that to be an objective truth.
theist: So you're saying kid diddling / rape / murder are all okay then?
atheist: what the literal F$%# are you talking about?

I feel that kid diddling is wrong. If there is a culture that believes it to be moral, I would disagree and still feel it was immoral. If the majority of people today believed kid diddling was okay, I would still be of the opinion that it was wrong.

If you ask me if it's objectively wrong . . . wrong based on some objective standard that exists outside of human opinion or belief, my answer is I don't know. And since you aren't God, you don't know either. You can say that you know. But since you are not God, I don't think you actually do know. If you are God, then I'll eat my words. And if you are not God and you are not God's mouthpiece anointed by God himself, then you must admit that you position on the morality of kid diddling is based on your best subjective understanding of God.

---

My post about those evils was not directed at you, hence my surprise when you responded by asking, 'who says it's immoral?' I specifically mentioned rape, murder, and diddling before you started engaging!

If you don't know if it's objectively wrong, where do such strong opinions come from? What validates your personal belief or gives your experience such weight that you react so angrily? If you can't say it's objectively wrong why is it so disturbing? That's the tension of the western atheist: revulsion at what is truly evil but an inability to 'know' that it's wrong in a meaningful way to argue against it.

Rocag said:

---

I consider that separate topic, but I don't find any of Bob's posts convincing and generally think Aggrad08 has had good responses.

I don't really see why you think it's some big gotcha moment to get someone to admit that their worldview is based on an unprovable assumption that the world actually exists and isn't an elaborate hallucination. Sure, fine. If that assumption is wrong so are the conclusions based on it. But without that assumption there's really nothing to talk about to begin with.

---

His argument is that there's no way of knowing, which is self defeating if it's posted time and time again. If there's no way to know, who cares and why spend so much time arguing over it? It's not a gotcha, it's simply an absurdity. We're talking a lot about things that don't exist.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Even if I were to accept what you said as true, and I do disagree with it, none of it really makes the existence of an objective moral standard any more likely. Preferable, certainly. But more likely to exist? No.

---

Bob gets it: it's a function of epistemology. You can't validate your own experiences without an external reference point. How could you possibly derive any notion of morality internally? You don't even know if your own responses can be trusted or true.

---

I disagree some of that, but not all of it. Yes, how can I trust my own response? How can I trust that my notion of morality is correct in an objective sense? I can't !!!!!!!! Subjective morality and moral relativism require humility enough to recognize that you cannot read God's mind.

---

But you can't even trust it in a subjective sense either. All of your thoughts and feelings relate to your unique position and knowledge. Why would you assume that you're better positioned to make a moral judgment knowing how little you know about what's outside of yourself? Isn't it more likely that you misunderstand? Again, this isn't humility; it's abdication and nihilism. You know nothing, so why think anything?

You can't know your perception of reality is true either. Making the additional assumption that god exists doesn't improve your starting position.